to wonder if the "Women take you for all you can get" thing is taking a deeper hold than ever?

[PyongyangKipperbang]

Two threads on MN in the last 24 hours about men out and out lying about bonuses or income. I have noticed a marked increase in this in recent months.

OK so there have always been men who will do this. Sadly financial abuse, selfishness and "whats mine is mine, whats yours is ours" has always happened but I cant help thinking that in recent years it has got worse. More men refusing to give the mother of their kids any sort of financial protection with marriage, shared home ownership or finances, etc yet slagging off a woman if she then in turn does the same.

My main hobby is playing poker, which is male dominated and there is one guy who I had quite a big row with when he said that his partner (refused to get married so he wouldnt "get taken to the cleaners") wouldnt share her significant inheritance with him and bought her own property with it because he wouldnt put her on the deeds of the home they live in (and that she has contributed to). Wouldnt see the double standard at all. He said that women have always done this so he was protecting himself, I said that its only because he wont give her anything that she has had to use her money to secure her future.

Has the "Andrew Tate" effect gone far further than is immediately obvious?

Apologies.....title should read "Women will take you for all THEY can get"

Yup. Not just AT though.

There's a whole red pill community now and the attitude that men have towards women is only getting worse.

Unfortunately young boys are watching this shit and growing up with it.

Most men have a thinly veiled contempt for women and it includes things like this.

It's also a lot of incel propaganda.
That women use sex to manipulate and take advantage of men who are "suffering from the loneliness epidemic".

They believe women want money and men want sex and women will take as much money as they can get.

Even my husband who takes no interest in this sort of thing said that he feels like most men just hate women these days.

Yeah. We are better off earning our own money and keeping men out of our lives completely. It sounds like I’m being sarcastic, but I’m not: I really, really mean that.
they’re truly horrific for the most part.

That thread the other day about stingy men on first dates was quite eye opening.

The majority of women don't want dinner in a flash restaurant for a first date. It's supposed to be quick so you can get out if there's no spark, with potential for a second coffee/drink or even date if you get on.

But a lot of posters were bleating about equality and going halves even for coffee. I mean ffs. If a man can't spring for a £3 americano or a (now £5 ugh) pint for me then he is not the man for me. It's a friendly gesture. I'll buy the next one, but if he doesn't buy the first, then nope, he's tight.

To be clear, dinner would be going halves. It's more unreasonable to expect a stranger to stump up £30/£50 or whatever, but £3?

They set the tone by expecting 50/50 from the start. That's not actually equal. Because there's give and take all the way through relationships, sometimes you're up, sometimes you're down. Theyre the sort that still want 50/50 when the woman is on maternity, or earning half his wage. If a man expects a woman to buy her own fucking drink but is still, let's face it, hopeful for her to put out at some point soon, then he's the one gaining.

Why does the man automatically have to buy first?

But again for the millionth time this is why I think both partents should be grown ups and actually be their own person and not rely on another, no one knows what the future holds

And also not stick their head in the sand of what is going on around them

Why does the man automatically have to buy first?

Partly to show they're not the kind of man the OP is talking about.

Or rather, if he suggests or assumes we're going halves for a drink that cost a fiver or less, they're exactly the kind of man the OP is talking about.

As I said, dinner is different.

Is that clearer for you?

Ii will only comment on the reluctant marriage but and this applies increasingly to women as well, as evidenced by increasing threads of women refusing to marry partners, especially when they already have children with an ex.

What has driven this was a punitive divorce regime that developed in the 1990s/2000 whereby nearly all men where being left financially destitute by divorce, increasingly with large capital amounts including inheritance being handed to the ex (wife). I know of several such examples, but the system is evolving over years and now inheritance can sometimes be excluded, prenups developing etc. what is wrong is that the govt hasn't legislated (as encouraged to do so) and leaving it to judges to work through an unfair regime. England is the divorce capital of the world..why.

But hence this punitive regime drives behaviour. Exactly the same as the current existing punitive tax rates are driving behaviour of people cutting working hours, moving from Scotland to England etc. people put their head in the sand it doesn't happen and it very well does.

My cousin is one such point. High flyer, very well paid and significant assets now. His friend as a lawyer has over night out chats confirmed that getting married is akin to signing over assets within two years. A prenup helps but given disparity is limited protection...and basically advised the only protection is not to get married....which then leaves a partner (if they have kids) more vulnerable.

Create shit, punitive unfair divorce regimes that cost a fortune and only benefit lawyers and this is what you get.

This was inevitable as women gained more financial independence. Society doesn’t see men as the providers for women anymore.

Women are told to have their own secret running away funds and to protect themselves financially so I don’t see why men shouldn’t do the same. It’s true that many of them end up at a huge financial disadvantage in divorce.

Equality goes both ways & it is interesting to see how women will pick & choose which aspects of equality are favourable & those which do not suit

Let's say a single woman with a career owns her home & had a good nest egg/pension

& she falls in love with a man with no assets or career

She may likely be advised by other women to not get married or have a watertight pre-nuptual agreement so as to protect her assets

It is not so uncommon in these modern times for women with a good career & husband who earns less to find themselves shocked that they will be owing maintenance to a man

It is also not so uncommon for a woman going through a divorce to be encouraged by other women or joke about taking her spouse "to the cleaners"

If women fought for equality, yet continue to fight beyond what is actually fair for both sexes

Then it stands to reason that we will see the emergence of men's rights activists as well

One could argue that the emergence of figures like Andrew Tate who speak about men's interests is true equality

One could also argue men and the patriarchy have managed to twist "feminism" and trick some women that "equality" is something that often ultimately benefits men.

Twas ever thus.

Who knows? Glancing through Facebook for example where the bitter men/easily led Andrew Tate disciples (who'll never have a Bugatti) who sound as if a woman would be rightly terrified to go within 10 feet of them, and the silly men who spoil their own lives by buying into these men's life-failing drivel, then yes you'd think there are a lot of men like this. But they probably always existed, its just that social media has given them a voice. Since I wouldn't be caught dead near any man like that, the ins & outs of them never inspires me to dialogue at great length. Far easier to never align with that type. Safer too, I should think.

That’s all very well until you factor in child-bearing. The statistics are clear that in the majority of cases, it’s the women who take the hit in terms of salary and career progression. As parenthood is a joint venture, it’s therefore incumbent on partners, husbands and fathers, to pool family resources to even out that shortfall.

I don’t understand why they can’t see that a toxic attitude towards a partner is what can ultimately result in a relationship breakdown. The misogyny probably extends to “domestic chores and kids are your job” finally a woman gets fed up and leaves and then they sit there feeling vindicated. In the case of the couple of threads here the dishonesty is what damages the relationship. Who wants to stay with someone who lies to them.

I don’t understand how that guy you know couldn’t see that quite obviously if he’s not willing to share then she is quite sensible to not share either (better would be to dump him obviously). I’d say the same if the roles were switched there.

I think women are warned off possible cocklodgers as there seem to be quite a few around, rather than a blanket, “he earns less than you don’t marry him”. Unfortunately the reality is that on average even where the wife is the higher earner/more hours she will probably still take the lions share of domestic/kids duties even though ideally it should be split 50/50 on the basis of time rather than earnings in all relationships. I’d only tell someone not to get married to someone if they said they were a lazy sod. I couldn’t care less if Dd married a lower earner to her as long as he was a decent human being who pulled his own weight and didn’t think she was his replacement mum.

I don’t really understand where the idea of pitching in together to build a life together has gone. Both should get the benefit of being in a relationship, whether thats sharing income, work, raising kids, whatever. Maybe it’s because divorce is so common that people start out with an eye on exit which is probably sensible but somewhat depressing.

Many mnetters seem to have swallowed the red pill too

Any post regarding any sort of domestic disharmony will result in many posts suggesting to stop sex and take him for every penny

Generally I’d agree but from what I recall from that thread, there was a woman who said she had a wine and the man had a lemonade, yet the woman was annoyed he didn’t pay for her wine. I do think that was cheeky.

If a high earning man marries a woman who earns less & they divorce

Then a settlement in the wife's financial favour is not necessarily dependent upon having children in the mix

In many cases women will choose not to climb the corporate ladder & have high flying careers because of a preference to have a work life balance & be at home at home more with our children

In situations where wives do have well paid careers and the husband is an even higher earner

Does this mean those wives should not be financially compensated at the expense of the husband in a divorce?

Ex and I were married for years, no kids and we came away with 50/50 from our divorce because we both worked albeit he earned more. So the divorce system didn’t screw him over.

If these men don’t want to give assets to the mother of their children upon divorce why don’t they marry women with equal earning power who don’t become SAHMs?

It seems like it suits them to have a dependent wife at home, until it doesn’t, and then they bleat about punitive divorce regimes.

I find it to be the reverse. Or maybe it is just more general for both sexes.

I'm a single mum and own a nice house (mortgaged). Otherwise money is tight, just the same as everyone else.

The last three boyfriends have come out with the following eye openers.

bf1 - Got upset when I didn't buy him a £3k watch for xmas. Openly said he wanted to live in my house.
bf2 - Tried to borrow a large sum of money off me, which I didn't have anyway. Where do people get these ideas?
bf3 - suggested I should keep him since he was retired, at 60, and I had an job. Then I caught him in my garden with the council planning officer, discussing selling my garden for housing, which was a shock.

Men like to ignore the fact that assets are shared because the woman has given up her career to bear and raise his children while he can focus on his career.

I am very wary now,and seldom date.

Rich men have always been reluctant to marry poorer women and advised not to by male friends far before Arsehole Tate. Eg Georgina and Ronaldo.
Your poker friend might not be telling the full truth and, if he is poor he shouldn't be wasting money on poker. Maybe the only way she can be with him without resenting him for gambling their money away or getting into debt or blowing up their assets is to keep her money protected by not marrying him.

Yes, this is equality, women who are well off don't have to marry men just like rich men have done and even when they marry they get aggressive schemes and contracts to minimise how much the wife gets.

Similarly, guys get so offended if a rich woman wants a man on her level. Equality doesn't mean exact mirror image it means bridging the gap to the equivalent, one sex might need more help than the other to reach equality.

@TinyYellow 'Women are told to have their own secret running away funds and to protect themselves financially so I don’t see why men shouldn’t do the same.'

The 'running away fund' is usually for women who are victims of domestic violence and may need to pick up their children and run, for fear of serious harm. Totally different thing. And yes, I know some men suffer dv, but very few in comparison for obvious reasons.

Also, I don't know a single father who have been left holding the baby, full time. I know plenty of mums who have.

Who says men dont hide away assets or savings? It's very weird portraying men as this weak innocent creature and women as money grabbing witches. Men created this whole system, they created religions, they created laws, they created barriers to womens professional success and financial independence. I guess it sucks having a taste of your own medicine?

I hate this attitude though. I am old and have never minded buying the first drink/meal etc. This plays into the narrative that cunts like AT want to portray as women as grabby.
I will and have dumped men that don't buy the second round though. In fact I find men that 100% insist they must buy the first pint a turn off.

Capitalism is out of control and all people seem to care about it money. We are becoming so blinkered it's like we can't see the value of real human connection and relationships built on mutual respect and trust. When I think of my grandparents that were happily married for 60 years, I honestly don't think it even occured to either of them that my grandfather had earnt more money in his lifetime or that my grandma had devoted more time to raising children. They were just a team and understood it was given and take. He supported her and she supported him with no hint of bitterness or suspicion.

Of course, divorce could have perhaps brought all this out but we forget that half of marriages never end. You could spend your whole life in fear of something that will never happen and sacrifice your chance of enjoying the kind of relationship that has been scientifically proven to make you happier and even extend your lifespan.

A line that's trotted out by the bitter and twisted.

I think it's because there's no guarantee in marriage anymore, it's so fluid. Women initiate the majority of divorces, is it any wonder why men want to protect themselves?

In the past, marriage meant together forever with a difficult divorce process. It made sense to share finances.

Nowadays, a woman can marry someone rich, get divorced five minutes later and get half. It's even worse if the husband is super rich (say, Paul McCartney) where a massive fortune is hers for simply existing as a wife. Is she 'more' of a wife than Mary down the road?